Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

Pataskala Council asked by potential neighbors to nix residential developments

Developers of a potential residential subdivision called "Sage Pointe" first came before Pataskala officials July 15, seeking input on some eyed changes to their proposed plan.(Photo: Craig McDonald/The Standard)

Two proposed residential developments being pitched to Pataskala City Council drew criticism from some potential neighbors during a series of public hearings held Jan. 21.

The site has been eyed for development previously, it was noted, including during calendar years 2001, 2005 and 2007, but each of those pitches were in turn denied by city council.

As currently proposed by Fischer Homes, Sage Pointe also calls for donation of 10 acres of the site to the Licking Heights School District that could become a location for a bus facility.

The development would also consist of about 35 acres of open space.

There would be one access point from Summit Road, directly opposite Windward Drive.

It was noted the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission recommend disapproval of the proposal late last year, citing drainage issues and school enrollment impacts, among other concerns.

Neighboring home owners who spoke against the proposal Jan. 21 shared concerns about the potential bus terminal and offered their estimations that the proposal doesn’t conform to the city’s comprehensive plan.

Buy Photo

According to a recent traffic study, as originally proposed, a Sage Pointe subdivision entrance could align with existing Windward Drive on the opposite side of Summit Road.(Photo: Craig McDonald/The Standard)

Another homeowner expressed her belief the proposed development, “doesn’t fit the rural character” of Pataskala.

Mayor Mike Compton said, “This will go into a reading mode tonight and we’ll have three readings. There will be plenty of time to come back and have more comment.”

But the next public hearing held immediately afterward Jan. 21 also consisted of a proposed residential development, this one of an agricultural site at 10560 Mill Street Road.

Developers are seeking a rezoning from agricultural to medium-low density residential status to open the way for development of seven residential lots there.

The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended disapproval of the Mill Street Road rezoning request.

The Mill Street Road proposal brought significantly more residents to the public hearing, filling the council chambers, and most of whom did not have a chance to speak owing to time restraints.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to the Newark Advocate today to access all of our content online at offers.newarkadvocate.com.

Developer Mark Graham, owner of Lancaster-based Countrytyme Realty, told council, “We’re a rural land developer. We fell in love with this site. It’s a beautiful piece of land…we see it as a good opportunity for rural home sites. We’re not a high-density developer.”

But potential Mill Street Road neighbors spoke of their objections to the proposal, and others warned of drainage issues at the site.

Some opposing the proposal spoke of the land’s rich agricultural and farming heritage, while others again warned of flooding issues on the property.

Bernard Brush, said, “This is really an attack on Pataskala and (our) rural atmosphere… Everyone wants to come here because it’s a great place to live and everyone wants to cut it up into cookie cutters. It’s getting to be unaffordable…”

The measure had its first official reading later in the Jan. 21 regular council meeting, and will have two more readings at subsequent council meetings ahead of a council vote.

There was also discussion by officials about ensuring there would be more time at subsequent public hearings on the matter in order to hear from more residents regarding the proposed development.